brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Good Articles/Featured Article Review
* Hi, now that a Manual of Style is being implemented, I'd like to ask what other people thought about having a Good Article scheme. Basically I think a GA should be an article that follows the Manual of Style, and the description is fairly good. Also, I was wondering what people thought about the Featured Article scheme. We haven't had one for a while, and personally I don't think some of the articles that are FA's deserve to be (eg 10143 Death Star II has a very short description, 8460 Pneumatic Crane Truck doesn't have an infobox, and wording of description isn't great). So I would like to propose that all current FA's lose their FA status for now, and the whole system restarted with the Manual of Style in place. I know is probably a radical proposal, so I can understand if everyone votes against it :) Voting on implementing some form of Good Article scheme Support # 01:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) # I don't want to restart, --Coupon11 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC) #* Sorry- I probably didn't make this clear- the Good Article suggestion is separate to the suggestion of restarting the FA's- if GA's were to be used here, they would exist independent of FA's- maybe see Wookieepedia's pages on GA's and FA's here and here? 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments/Suggestions Voting on restarting Featured Article scheme Support # 01:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose # kingcjc 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (its like erasing the history of the featured articles, and instead of removing them, we should improve them) Comments How about putting this on articles that don't meet the criteria for featured articles: || * I like the look of it- it means we don't have to redo FA's but makes it clear that it is possibly not one of or best articles anymore 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ** btw, we don't seem to have any criteria for featured articles. --LegOtaku (talk • ) 10:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC) *** True- and I think we should come up with soon. I think it should have at least GA requirements, but don't have any ideas about what else it should have 09:44, September 4, 2009 (UTC) **** I think, besides the GA requirements, it should have several well-written paragraphs or at least a considerable amount of continous text and should also contain several pictures. An article that consists only of an introduction and a list of sets/appearances isn't enough. In its current state, Star Wars is not an article but rather something that should be called List of LEGO Star Wars sets. --LegOtaku (talk • ) 06:53, September 6, 2009 (UTC) ***** I agree with this completely- FA's should have a lot more content to them and have more than one image around to make them look good. And if Wookieepedia can have an article on LEGO about half the length on ours and not even have a list of sets included, I don't see why we can't improve descriptions on theme pages at the very least. 08:25, September 6, 2009 (UTC) ****** Should we implement this template now? I already prepared a project page: Brickipedia:Featured articles/Refurbish. --LegOtaku (talk • ) 10:24, September 6, 2009 (UTC) ******* Sure- that should be fine 11:43, September 6, 2009 (UTC)